In today's Guardian, writer Simon Chilvers tries, desperately, to make the term "manbag" happen. He swears sales of bags for men are booming, and no doubt they are. In this day and age, especially in urban settings, you've got to bring your whole life with you, be you female or male. Laptop, digital camera, book, snacks, meds, notebook, etc. So yeah, ladies have purses. Or handbags. What do you call it when it's toted by a dude? He asks Conor McNicholas, editor of NME, "How do you feel about the term manbag?" McNicholas replies, "It's really derogatory, isn't it?" Gordon Richardson, a design director, is asked the same question. "You don't call women's bags 'womanbag,' so why we have to have this terminology, I don't know. By defining it, it rather damages its appeal."
But does Chilvers sort of have a point? The thing he's talking about, while often worn slung across the body like a messenger bag, is not a messenger bag, especially when it's made by Comme Des Garçons. It's not a briefcase, even if it does have work-related stuff in it. It's not — gag! — a "murse." But why the need to tack the "man" on manbag? Why not just say "scrotum"? Are guys soooo insecure in their masculinity that they think a handbag might turn them into a lady?